About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 89 (615 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

San Francisco 16, Us 6, The City 4, Dr. Faulkner 2, San Dusk 2, Dr. Scott Fauker 1, Russ Baldwin 1, Fannie Mae 1, Peter 1, Richard Janning 1, Jay 1, Peter Cohen 1, Jay Konig 1, Ms. Hilliard 1, Jim Reid 1, Anthony 1, Scott Weiner 1, King 's Lane 1, Burger 1, California 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    October 8, 2012
    6:30 - 7:00am PDT  

6:30am
developed a fact sheet. it's basically a way to guide community groups or community organizations to provide feedback and requests to the city administrator. so, last year the first applicant was [speaker not understood]. we learned a lot through the process as did they. the very, very first meeting with them i think got off on a great start. it was actually they hosted the committee in the public in their offices at 6th and mission. and, you know, they kind of just said here are some ideas we have. you tell us if you think this would work or what are some of your ideas around how we could have mutual benefit to the community. so, that was actually a really, really welcome first step by san dusk. the city administrator did negotiate a cba that was brought to the cac in january,
6:31am
and it was approved by the city administrator at the end of january. and this past year san dusk actually negotiated their second round, the second cba. september 20th was the final public hearing on that cba. i'm not sure if the city has signed off on it yet. >> could you talk a little bit, could you summarize the first cba with sandusk what was finally agreed upon? and also the value of the exclusion. >> sure. so, my understanding is that the value -- well, the cba's intention is that 30% of their benefit goes toward providing community benefits. i think the first year san dusk said their benefit amount was $75,000 and their cba actually went above and beyond that amount. but they mainly -- the major
6:32am
thing is they committed to is to host tours and panels for their employees and for the public on things relating to the tenderloin, such as tours, sro tours. they did a lot of work around food justice. they sponsored an improve sf challenge for the neighborhood. they provided volunteer days in the neighborhood, and they also worked with the tenderloin tech lab, which is a collaboration between st. anthony's and network ministries where they helped staff and work in their tech lab, which is one of the areas of expertise. they did in their cba, they did agree to donating some of their equipment. what they found was that they didn't have the turn over of their equipment. this is a fairly new company,
6:33am
that their equipment wasn't expired yet. >> you don't have to go over -- i'm sorry, just actually what was agreed upon. you don't have to go over the kind of back and forth prior to that. basically wanted to clarify their exclusion was around $30,000 last year. >> and i know this year they said it was around 200,000. so, they did have more employees this year. that's basically the gist of what that agreement was. this year they did expand on that. some of the things that they agreed in the first cba, they weren't able to complete and so we continued that to this year. and they did increase -- they were going to give a monetary contribution to a community garden which they doubled from what they're wanting to contribute last year. i think some of the things that we learned through the process and what the experience of the cac was that it was very helpful to have san dusk be open and welcoming of the
6:34am
process, to have -- to host us at their company at the first meeting. they were very willing and eager to engage and i think it's part thev culture of their -- part of their culture to be community minded. it was an expectation of what amount we were looking at in terms of benefits. and i know that san dusk did state to us that the first cba was a little too specific at times. they specifically -- they named specific organizations to work with and in some instances those organizations were not quite ready to work with san dusk in the capacity that they had envisioned. so, this year that was a little less specific. >> could you kind of go over the upcoming cbas that you
6:35am
have? >> sure. we are looking at approximately 5 to 7 companies that are applying for the payroll tax exclusion this year, twitter being a big one. [speaker not understood] lane, zoosk, and i can't remember any of the others off the top of my head. but i know that the cac members have been engaging with executives at twitter at 1 king's lane. i'm p sure they are with the process of the negotiating with the city's administrator. they have increased meetings from once a month to twice a month to accommodate, you know -- we expect a flurry of companies that are going to be applying. and the cbas have to be signed by january 31st. so, it's going to be kind of a busy time of year. but as far as i know, you know, i don't have the latest up to date information, but i don't think any other companies have officially applied for the payroll tax exclusion. i might be wrong on that, but we are looking at about 5 to 7
6:36am
that will apply. that's basically all i had. do you have any questions? >> no further questions. it would be great to get the lists of the companies that you think would be applying this year. i also understand it's twitter is 1 kings lane and [speaker not understood] is the other company. we have a few companies that did move into the market, but they moved to the excluded properties of mid-market because they didn't have historical vacancies. i know, for example, dolby moved into i believe the former state compensation building which we had excluded from the tax exclusion. my understanding also, we have the small businesses apply. of course, they don't come before the cac, or businesses like pearls and burger, for example, that applied for the tax exclusion. they don't gross over 1 million in payroll so don't have to form a cba with the city and
6:37am
county. i don't have any further questions. seeing no further questions from colleagues, i do want to thank you, ms. hilliard, for all of your work. not only do you do this, but you also serve as the director of our north of market cbd and you're doing tremendous work in the tenderloin neighborhood. i know that all the cba -- all the cac members are incredibly involved in the neighborhood. i know very dedicated and devoted. it's great to have your perspective and advising counsel when working with these companies on how they can come into a neighborhood with pre-existing communities, but can also develop partnerships with them. and i actually happened to meet the two youth that grew up in the tenderloin actually live in glide affordable housing and that got the two summer internships with san dusk and are hoping to get hired after they finally graduate. i know they really, really enjoyed the summer internship. it was great to see some of the actual outcomes of the cba in the neighborhood. it is something i'm very passionate about in the tenderloin. glad to see that is the issue they picked with your help and
6:38am
the committee's help. so, thank you. >> great, thank you. >> so, at this time we will open up for public comment on this item. seeing no public comment, public comment is closed. seeing no other comments, colleagues, can we just motion to file the hearing? >> move to file. >> we have a motion to file. and we can do that without opposition. thank you. mr. clerk, can you please call item number 8? >> item number 8, ordinance amending the san francisco business and tax regulations code section 906.3-1 to clarify how members of the citizen's advisory committee for the central market street and tenderloin area shall be appointed for their initial terms. >> thank you. this is actually a minor amendment that i wanted to introduce on the business and
6:39am
tax regulation code clarifying how many members of the citizens have iery committee for the central market street and tenderloin area shall be appointed for their initial term. when we initially passed this ordinance, we did make a mistake when describing the staggering of the terms. this amendment simply addresses the issue requiring that the terms be staggered for all members. so, i i'd just like to offer one amendment on page 4 line 7 to read, "prior to november 1st, 2012." and also we had, as i said, we only had nine of the members have staggered terms instead of the full 11-member body. seeing no further questions, at this time we will open up for public comment on this item. seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, we have a motion to move this forward to the board with recommendation? >> make a motion to move this forward with recommendation. >> and we can do that without opposition.
6:40am
thank you. before we entertain a motion to convene in closed session, is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on either items 9 or item number 1? seeing none, we do ask members of the public to please exit the room. colleagues, can we have a notion to move into closed session? >> so moved. >> we do that without objection. -- we have a motion. we can do that without objection. thank you. so, at this time we will convene in closed session. [closed session] >> committee in closed session decided to continue item 9 to the call of the chair and move item 10 to the full board with recommendation. >> thank you. colleagues, do we have a motion to not disclose what happened in closed session? >> move. >> we have a motion and we can do that without opposition. mr. clerk, is there anything else on the agenda? >> there are no more items,
6:41am
madam chair. >> the meeting is adjourned. [adjourned] hi, i'm jay konig, a member of the league of women voters. along with the league and sf gov tv, i'm here to discuss proposition c the city currently uses federal, state and local funds to support affordable housing programs for both low income and moderate income households.
6:42am
recent federal cutbacks and reductions in state funding have decreased the funding available for affordable housing programs. proposition c would amend the charter to establish a housing trust fund. the city would contribute $20 million dollars to the fund in 2013. each year the city contribution would increase by 2.8 million dollars up to 50.8 million dollars in 2024. after 2024, the city would contribute an annual amount base the on the 50.8 million dollars but adjusted for changes in the city's general fund revenue. the city would use the fund to build, purchase and improve affordable housing, provide 15 million dollars for a loan program for down payment assistance for moderate income home buyers and emergency first responders and provide up to 15
6:43am
million dollars for a program that would help eligible households avoid foreclosure. proposition c would change the affordable housing requirement for private residential developments in two ways. first, it would reduce the on site affordable housing requirement to approximately 12 percent for most projects. second, it would prohibit the city from increasing affordable housing requirements beyond those in place on january 1st, 2013. proposition c would authorize the development of up to 30,000 low income rental units in the city. i'm here with peter cohen, executive director of the council of community housing organizations, and a proponent of proposition c also joining us is starchild, local activist with the libertarian party of san francisco and former candidate for public office. he is an opponent of the
6:44am
measure. thank you both for taking the time to be with us day. peter, would you offer some opening comments about your support of the measure? >> sure, and thank you, jay, for having us and for the league of women voters for puting this on. this is a great service. i don't want to overcomplicate this. the prop c housing trust fund is really a very basic measure. it maintains and stabilizes the long-standing funding committee san francisco has made to affordable housing. just in the last two decades the city has helped it produce upwards of 20,000 permanently affordable housing units, boat both rental and home ownership. the state of california recently dissolved our redevelopment agencies across the state for various reasons, but one of the unintended consequences was that it eliminated one of the great funding sources for our
6:45am
affordable housing work locally. prop c restores that source essentially to the same level and continue to provide that long-standing commitment. >> thank you. starchild, can you offer some comments for the opposition? >> sure, and thank you again for having us. proposition c would actually subsidize housing for people earning more than the median income in san francisco among others and would reduce the amount of units in new development which go to so-called affordable housing, which isn't really even all that affordable. san francisco desperately needs more afrldable housing but this mer err, which essentially brings the san francisco redevelopment agency back from the dead, is not the way to do it. the redevelopment agency has a long history some would say of racism and certainly cronyism,
6:46am
lack of accountability, that's one of the reasons they were closed down last year by the democratic governor. we believe that was a great decision and shouldn't be brought back until 2042. >> peter, similar elements what we're seeing in this proposition almost four times, set asides in 9090 and the bond measures proposed in 2002 and 2004. can you describe how this may be different in its effect in how it's being brought forward to the voters? >> sure. well, as i said, the immediate context, the crisis, if you will, is that the city stands to significantly lose funding for its programs. i mean we're talking about a program cut. so that's quite different in some respects from previous
6:47am
attempts, but the similarity is that for many years we've been thinking about how to stabilize the funding that we need for affordable housing programs over the long-term. not everything can be done immediately, sometimes there needs to be long-term planning, there needs to be bonding, it's a complicated process of doing affordable housing work. the way it was done before if a bond was previously passed was to get the voters to approve a bond, you essentially are borrowing money, you spend that down, you pay it back with interest and start over again. the idea of having a somewhat more stable and permanent source is the housing trust fund. the difference between this and the previous attempt is it does not touch previous revenues existing now. it builds on existing sources and new sources that are anticipated. that's a very important point for us coming into this. we have many members, i have a coalition,
6:48am
the council of community housing coalition is a coalition of developers and organizers and none of them are in social services. we understand full well you can't rob from peter to pay paul. that was one of our fundamental, if you will, bright lines was that it have revenue that did not touch funding from other sources. >> the opposition. starchild. >> money is fungible so any money put toward this source would by definition not be available for other needs, everything from parks to health care to education. this measure would get san francisco city government into the business of making home loans. this is part of what brought on the economic crisis at the federal level, fannie mae and freddie mac giving out home loans to people who couldn't
6:49am
afford to buy and later had their houses foreclosed. we don't know what's going to happen in the housing market for the next 30 years. i think it's foolish to set aside increasing set amounts of money for the next 3 decades when we know right now that there's thousands of people living on the streets. why not just build as many affordable units now as possible and do that by getting government out of the way with all its red tape and regulations and taxes and union work rules that increase the cost of housing. that would be a better way to get affordable housing, not bringing back this redevelopment agency with its legacy of driving african americans out of the fillmore and they had slated more than half the bay area for redevelopment before they were shut down. >> anything you'd like to add, peter? >> there's a number of
6:50am
assertions from my opponent that are based in a misunderstanding how affordable housing works in san francisco in this particular measure. unfortunately there's not enough time to tackle all of them, but i want to make clear this is not subsidizing middle income home owners. this is going to go primarily for low and very low householders in san francisco. that has always been the programmatic focus because you can leverage funding. we live in a high income market and that is exactly why we have an affordable sector in this city. when it comes it recreating redevelopment, that's a fallacy. it's about recognizing that redevelopment allowed a certain portion of money to be used for redevelopment. it's not about recreating redevelopment, in
6:51am
fact that's a closed chapter in history. lastly the idea we are reducing the mixed income housing is also a sort of fallacy. there is a purpose to providing an incentive for developers to do what's called mixed income housing, providing some of their units are affordable to mixed income households. most developers do not do that and this is an incentive for them to do it. this is providing a set of programs that are funded providing all the way for folks who were formerly homeless to folks who are middle income to be and stay in san francisco. >> any final comments, starchild. >> it sounds like peter is saying on one hand, well, no, it won't subsidize middle income people then he's saying there is a range all the way from middle income people all the way up to -- he doesn't say what the top range is. there's a guy named jim reid who is a
6:52am
contractor here he built himself in his own back yard a single unit house that he built for $12,000, very small, designed for one person, getting somebody off the street, like 10 foot by 10 foot but it had plumbing, electricity, storage, everything someone would need to live a simple existence. 12,000, how much is it going to cost to build these, half a million dollars? they are not really affordable. they're not going to help those most in need of housing as we can see by the continued presence of the homeless on the streets of san francisco. this is a measure designed to capture revenue like the redevelopment agency did. >> thank you both very much for sharing your thoughts and insights. we hope this discussion was
6:53am
informative. for more information on this and other ballot measures in this year's election, please visit the san francisco league of women voters web site at sfvotes.org and remember early voting is available at city hall monday through friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm if you don't vote early , be sure to vote on november 6. thank you. . >> hi, i'm richard janning, a board member of the league of women voters. along with the league and sf gof tv, i'm here to discuss proposition d, a ballot measure that will be before the voters on november 6. the mayor, sheriff and district attorney are elected in november of the same year. the city attorney and treasurer are elected in november of a
6:54am
different year. proposition d is a charter amendment that would change the election cycle for city attorney and treasurer so that these officers would be elected at the same time as the mayor, sheriff and district attorney beginning in 2015. i'm here with district 8 supervisor scott weiner, and dr. scott fauker, an opponent of proposition d >> let's start with you, supervisor. thanks for having me. proposition d is a good government measure that will increase voter turnout in our elections for city attorney and treasurer, two very important offices, and will also save the city 4.2 million dollars every 4 years. right now we elect our city attorney and treasurer in a very, very low turnout odd year election where they are the
6:55am
only two offices on the ballot. and turnout is always extremely low in that election. and it costs us over $4 million dollars to hold that election. proposition d would move the city attorney and treasurer elections to be on the same ballot as the mayor, which is a much myer turn jut election, so more people would be voting for city attorney and treasurer and every time we don't hold that very low turnout odd year election separately for city attorney and treasurer, we'll save 4.2 million dollars. prop d was put on the ballot unanimously by the board of supervisors and it's been endorsed overwhelmingly by both the democratic and republican party. >> dr. faulkner, do you think this is a good idea. >> it has several problems. the original theory is the charter of 1932 was to stagger elections so people would pay more attention to each office, in other words, elect a couple offices each time and do it on
6:56am
an annual basis. this has been modified with various charter amendments but the new charter but the other way theoretically you have more people involved, but in practice when you have those 3-page ballots printed on either side, offices get lost. things like city attorney and city treasurer will get lost in the shuffle. the big problem is city government, making sure the people actually pay attention. we have had a problem for a long time with san francisco and dysfunctional san francisco. that's depending on other city issues that are up, the coalition to san francisco neighborhoods is going against them. we have a city government that's very out of touch in many ways and we're, frankly, annual elections would be very wise to keep the people paying attention it what's
6:57am
happened. we have very strong developer interest, strong lobbyist influence, and very little public interest. things get sidelined and they wonder why things suddenly get opposed like the park bond which is being heavily opposeopposed. >> thank you. supervisor, do you believe having the elections all at one time is better for the electorate or does it get lost when you have so many positions up for election? >> since he did raise the issue of the parks bond, we're not here for that. the parks bond has very overwhelming support. going back to prop d, there's a balance to be struck. i agree if we only had, if we elected everything from president to dog catcher all on 1 ticket at some point it gets to be too much, but if you spread everything out too much, we could have separate elections for like two offices
6:58am
here, two offices there and have multiple elections every year. yes, that would give more air time to each individual election but no one would vote and you'd have extremely low turn out elections. so for the city attorney-treasurer elections at issue here, even though they have higher prominence in their stand alone odd year election, when only 15, 20 percent, maybe 25 percent in a good year, are actually voting in that election, what's the point? more prominence but no one's actually voting for it. a bad turnout for a mayoral election is better than a good turnout for city attorney-treasurer stand alone election. so combining those elections gives a bad balance in terms of increasing voter participation and improving our budget situation. >> thank you. dr. faulkner, if we don't have good voter turnout for the odd year for the city treasurer
6:59am
position, why not combine it with the rest? >> as i said, annual elections at least keep people paying attention. the history of san francisco, which is not a good one, we have had a lot of corruption over the years, russ baldwin, the roof ring, the history of san francisco is pretty open. we have had a tremendous amount of developer influence at city hall, a tremendous amount of lobbying, the people are pushed out of it. we need more public participation. originally odd elections were scheduled for the mayor's race, we do not schedule it with the president for that reason. with the first repeal of district elections the people who did the first repeal suddenly moved it over to presidential and